The Chicken Littles at the WaPo are wringing their hands (in glee, since they'll think it will hurt Bush's approval ratings) over the June unemployment numbers, which increased to 6.4% (a number that used to be considered relatively low during previous downturns).

Isn't it just terrible for all of those recent college graduates, new on the job market, to see unemployment spiking just as they're seeking work?

(And yes, lest anyone ask, that is indeed sarcasm at the WaPo's ignorance of the seasonality of last month's number.)

Hmmm...I don't know. Isn't unemployment for people who have worked, but have then lost their jobs? How are jobless claims determined and do they traditionally spike in June/July?

I'm a big Bush supporter, but this reasoning seems like whistling past the graveyard.

On the plus side, employment is a lagging economic indicator so hopefully things will reverse by Fall 2004.

No, the new unemployment claims statistic is for people who have lost their jobs, but the employment rate is computed by dividing the number of people looking for work by the number of people both working and looking, so when new job seekers come into the market the rate goes up.

Though, on second thought, I think that there are supposed to be seasonal adjustments to handle such things as college graduations and temp work during the holidays, but I don't know if that 6.4 number included them.

Elaine Chao explained that the higher number was due to more people looking for work who had not previously been part of the labor force.

My take: we better keep reforming our anti-growth tax system, so these people will have jobs.

Here's an AP story that says that the jobless figure announced today is a nine-year high. Presumably, people have been graduating from colleges for these past nine years.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom -- other numbers are much more positive, and until the tech bubble of the 1990s, a six-percent jobless rate was considered quite normal. But let's not pretend like the number is meaningless.

E, that doesn't mean anything. Certainly the economy is worse from a job standpoint than it's been in the past nine years, but if you compare apples to apples, I'll be you'll see a similar incrase every year around this time.

I would really love to see time series of these closely-followed statistics, but apparently even the term "time series" makes the average reporter's eyes glaze over. The usual way to put the latest data point in some kind of context is to refer to it as (in this case) a "nine-year high." So I like to tell myself that nine years ago this number was worse. That would have been 1994, and of course we all remember how that was the beginning of such an economic dark age.

You people are sick. Bush opened his mouth in the 2nd debate with Gore and the very next day the markets started going down. As long as the people who own the largest corporations and ALL of the major media outlets want this guys face on this country ... then we're all up shit creek. Face it, it wasn't the CIA bringing down the trade towers that started the slide... it was the little war monger, murdering, lying, stealing creep in the White House. We can bring back the towers, bring back the stock market, hell, bring back the 3 Trillion $$$ that mostly Republicans took out of our asses... nothing will change until George Weasel goes.

One man in the history of the earth, if every person on earth were allowed a vote, would be thrown off of the planet. Come on, hitler wouldn't have even been a 'shoe-in'... why you guys keep talking like this is just some college thesis? ... bla bla bla, well, these false numbers divided by this fake poll, compounded by the Fox news effect which travels up hill for 5 miles, turns left travels on 30 miles at 63.5 mph... it should all arrive at Chicago at 3:15... Are you all f^#^ing nutts? Grow some nadds and speak the truth for once... quit hiding behind impressive talk and freakn say something that wouldn't just fly while two geek rich guys are playing golf.

'You people are sick. Bush opened his mouth in the 2nd debate with Gore and the very next day the markets started going down.'

This is unusual. A Democrat admitting that the economic downturn started during the Clinton administration.

'As long as the people who own the largest corporations and ALL of the major media outlets want this guys face on this country ... then we're all up shit creek. '

If the VRWC has that much power - then why wasn't there a big market drop while Clinton was running for his 2nd term?

Nice to hear from the Stark Raving Moonbat wing. Passionate words, but nothing about the fact that unemployment was indeed higher in 1994. I'm not real clear on why the Powers That Be are attached to George W. Bush, even though he caused the stock market to slide during the Clinton administration. I would think they would bury him for that.

ROFLMAO!

I guess one sector of the economy that's looking up is tinfoil -- for hats...

Imagine what the rate would be if just 20% of all these idiots that either work for government (Fed.,state and local) or are in prison were looking for work. It would be nice if the former statistic were true and the latter one were untrue.